Arvel Hathcock wrote: > IMO, the SSP spec appropriately speaks to what must be done when SSP is > used. In cases where you decide not to use SSP you are naturally not > bound by any of it's requirements. It would seem odd to me if we added > text along the lines of "If you're not planning to employ this spec then > you can ignore what it says" as I believe that is a given and I've not > seen it in other specs but I could be wrong.
+1 But no problem to mention it in the spec. if it helps to close an issue. _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
